Trump to win?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

too bitter for me. from hot anger to cold anger. my hope was we could get past the anger but i guess not.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...This is religion for you Woody, it's just an election for me with only one clear choice.

Doubleplusgood brother!

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Clueless you say? I sure wasn't clueless saying both parties are corrupt have to be replaced. It may happen this election or maybe the next but the American people have woken up.

Your condescending attitude destroys any credibility you think you have.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

No problemo, amigo

The elite in the Democrat party and current Republican establishment only care for power and privilege. As flawed as Trump may be he's the only one to shake up and change the system to help the middle and lower classes.

My idea of a New majority party may be taking shape and will hopefully evolve into something we can all be proud of.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Hey, JK! This fact based approach is going gangbusters, dotcha think?

I deliver facts, studies and arguments and you fellas use conjecture and speculation to tell me I'm wrong.

Enjoy your "facts" Woody, I'm out on this thread. You remind me of clueless and his "facts" regarding global warming. I think your "facts" are going to work out about as well for you as his "facts" have worked out. There is no global warming and Trump is sincere. Words to live by.

From yesterday: Last night in Charlotte, North Carolina, the notoriously unrepentant Donald Trump shocked observers by expressing "regret" for words that "may have caused personal pain."

The entire quote: Sometimes, in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don’t choose the right words or you say the wrong thing. I have done that, and I regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain. Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues.


Wow, after a year, Trump's handlers got him to offer a "sincere" apology.



Oops, not so much.

This is religion for you Woody, it's just an election for me with only one clear choice.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

O'Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.

'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?'

'Four.'

'And if the party says that it is not four but five -- then how many?'

'Four.'

The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston's body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O'Brien watched him, the four fingers still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased.

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Four.'

The needle went up to sixty.

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!'

The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at it. The heavy, stern face and the four fingers filled his vision. The fingers stood up before his eyes like pillars, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably four.

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!'

'How many fingers, Winston?'

'Five! Five! Five!'

'No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please?'

'Four! five! Four! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!'

Abruptly he was sitting up with O'Brien's arm round his shoulders. He had perhaps lost consciousness for a few seconds. The bonds that had held his body down were loosened. He felt very cold, he was shaking uncontrollably, his teeth were chattering, the tears were rolling down his cheeks. For a moment he clung to O'Brien like a baby, curiously comforted by the heavy arm round his shoulders. He had the feeling that O'Brien was his protector, that the pain was something that came from outside, from some other source, and that it was O'Brien who would save him from it.

'You are a slow learner, Winston,' said O'Brien gently.

'How can I help it?' he blubbered. 'How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.'

'Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.'

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Meanwhile Trump and Pence are on the ground in Louisiana helping flood victims with supplies and touring the damage. Both physical and moral support to the worst natural disaster since Sandy.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/t...hit-louisiana/

Clinton and Obama? Not even a flyover?!

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/N4...d4_RTRM4X5.jpg

I do remember when Candidate Obama chastised Bush for his New Orleans flyover, but I think unless we forget it, we're racists or bigots or something really bad.

That's not the same when as President he plays golf while Candidate Trump visits the victims. In fact, Trump is the bad guy here, although I'm not exactly sure why.

As we are discovering, there are rules for Democrats, rules for Republicans, rules for Clinton and rules for Trump. It's sort of hard to follow and shifts around based on the issue, but as far as I can tell it works like this:

Anything Trump does is illegitimate.
Anything Hillary does is legitimate.
Hillary can lie and tell the truth simultaneously and to multiples of different audiences. A lie to one audience is a truth to the other and vice versa.
Everything Trump says is a lie, even if it is true. Any statement even if categorically true and verifiable becomes a lie the moment Trump utters it.
Hillary cannot be held accountable for any of the things she has done as there is always a mitigating circumstance or excuse.
Trump must be held accountable for things he has done and also not done and may yet do and there is never a mitigating circumstance or excuse.

There are probably more rules and it's likely they can change without notice. Forgive me, but I am having trouble keeping up.

Orwell called it "Doublethink."

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink...The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."

George Orwell, "1984"

Also, I owe you a YUGE apology for past transgressions. I tell you, as a mitigating circumstance, Democrats were different in my day. Of course they were in the majority back then and so could afford things like honesty and fair dealing.

Lo siento mucho, amigo.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

if they are the ones [mostly] to live with the consequences, i say let them choose.

to say you know better, absent a crystal ball, is imo disrespectful paternalism.

Now, we wouldn't be trying to imply that I have race animus with that "disrespectful paternalism" bit, were we, doctor? These things can get easily misconstrued, especially when some folks seem inclined to do the misconstruing. Not that I think you intended that, never. But in these times it pays to be clear, wouldn't you agree doctor?

I didn't say I knew better. I didn't say that they should do what I do.

...demonstrating that the trust of Black voters was tragically misplaced. And since they were wrong about him (twice) the rest of us should, based on their demonstrably false predictive record, trust their opinion now?

I said their expectations were disappointed and consistently so. I noted that their trust seems misplaced and that they were wrong in their expectations twice in a row and that makes me doubt the value of their predictions. And for myself and myself only, that makes me less inclined to follow their lead.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Meanwhile Trump and Pence are on the ground in Louisiana helping flood victims with supplies and touring the damage. Both physical and moral support to the worst natural disaster since Sandy.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/t...hit-louisiana/

Clinton and Obama? Not even a flyover?!


https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/N4...d4_RTRM4X5.jpg

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

So true. And Hillary's husband received a similar degree of support and then proceeded to pass the Crime Bill by putting a black face on it with his "midnight basketball" gambit, spent billions of dollars constructing a vast new penal system, misdirecting billions that could have been spent putting young people to work and investing in their communities, demonstrating that the trust of Black voters was tragically misplaced.

And since they were wrong about him (twice) the rest of us should, based on their demonstrably false predictive record, trust their opinion now?

if they are the ones [mostly] to live with the consequences, i say let them choose.

to say you know better, absent a crystal ball, is imo disrespectful paternalism.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

... Trump is clearly courting the Willie Horton fear vote in 2016.

And Hillary is courting both the law and order vote and the ufck the police vote simultaneously. And this is a reason we should give her statements more veracity than Trump, especially when we know she's pandering, which is apparently all the time? Got it.

Hey, JK! This fact based approach is going gangbusters, dotcha think?

I deliver facts, studies and arguments and you fellas use conjecture and speculation to tell me I'm wrong. Hillary is always sincere even when she's lying and Trump is always lying even when he's sincere. Awesome system you have going there.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

i didn't say we should trust hillary on this. her policies may well be a reflection of polling and focus groups instead of heartfelt beliefs. otoh, she has overwhelming support in the african-american community. recent polling was, remarkably 90% for hillary and 1% for trump. so apparently that group trusts her more on this, and other, issues.

So true. And Hillary's husband received a similar degree of support and then proceeded to pass the Crime Bill by putting a black face on it with his "midnight basketball" gambit, spent billions of dollars constructing a vast new penal system, misdirecting billions that could have been spent putting young people to work and investing in their communities, demonstrating that the trust of Black voters was tragically misplaced.

And since they were wrong about him (twice) the rest of us should, based on their demonstrably false predictive record, trust their opinion now?

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

as keynes said, "when the facts change, i change my mind." i don't think people having different policy beliefs separated by a 20 year interval is a great surprise. i agree, however, that santa's reference to needing to be a bubba to get elected makes the choice of policy sound cynical and manipulative.

so it's not clear, do we see cynical shifts to reflect popular moods, or have we seen an evolution in understanding. i am dubious that when the crime bill was passed people really understood how it would lead to the carceral state. similarly, i don't think they well understood the consequences of "ending welfare as we [knew] it." so it is at least possible that policy beliefs have shifted to reflect new facts on the ground.

I am looking at the candidate's slate and their current language. What I hear from Trump is 1994, boots on your neck, law and order. What I hear from HRC is quite moderated from her past positions.

Trump: “I am the law and order candidate.”
Trump: "Hillary Clinton on the other hand is weak..."

Trump: "We must maintain law and order at the highest level or we will cease to have a country."

Trump: "Without safety, we have nothing.”

Trump quotes Mussolini and says: "What difference does it make?"

Trump praises dictators:
Saddam Hussein: "[Hussein] killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights."
Muammar Gaddafi: "We would be so much better off if Gaddafi were in charge right now."
Bashar al-Assad: "I think in terms of leadership, he's getting an A and our president is not doing so well." - really??
Kim Jong Un: "You got to give him credit. It's incredible. He wiped out the uncle, he wiped out this one, that one. I mean, this guy doesn't play games."
Vladimir Putin: "I believe I'll get along fine with Putin."

HRC is not Roosevelt but neither is she the "law and order" candidate. Trump is clearly courting the Willie Horton fear vote in 2016.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

i didn't say we should trust hillary on this. her policies may well be a reflection of polling and focus groups instead of heartfelt beliefs. otoh, she has overwhelming support in the african-american community. recent polling was, remarkably 90% for hillary and 1% for trump. so apparently that group trusts her more on this, and other, issues. i defer to that community on this set of issues since they are the most affected.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

as keynes said, "when the facts change, i change my mind." i don't think people having different policy beliefs separated by a 20 year interval is a great surprise. i agree, however, that santa's reference to needing to be a bubba to get elected makes the choice of policy sound cynical and manipulative.

so it's not clear, do we see cynical shifts to reflect popular moods, or have we seen an evolution in understanding. i am dubious that when the crime bill was passed people really understood how it would lead to the carceral state. similarly, i don't think they well understood the consequences of "ending welfare as we [knew] it." so it is at least possible that policy beliefs have shifted to reflect new facts on the ground.

Sure, but I think we might need to modify it a bit to say "when the voters change, Hillary changes her mind."

Just so I understand what you two are arguing here. We should give Hillary the benefit of the doubt despite clear evidence of her evolving and contradictory positions based on her record and trust her that she means it this time. But we don't give Trump a similar benefit even though he has no record and just assume that he's lying?

So when Hillary says she supports cops, cops should believe her but black folk should understand that she's only pandering to cops. And when she says she wants police reform to black audiences, cops should understand that she doesn't really mean it and is only pandering to black voters?

But when Trump says "I will not rest until children of every color in this country are fully included in the American Dream. Jobs, safety, opportunity. Fair and equal representation. This is what I promise to African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and all Americans" we shouldn't believe him because...because he's not Hillary?

What point are you fellas are trying to make again? Making awful choices for political expediency is okay for Democrats, but not okay for Republicans? When Democrats lie they do it for good reason, but when Republicans do, it's for bad ones?

It didn’t have to be like this. As a nation, we had a choice. Rather than spending billions of dollars constructing a vast new penal system, those billions could have been spent putting young people to work in inner-city communities and investing in their schools so they might have some hope of making the transition from an industrial to a service-based economy. Constructive interventions would have been good not only for African Americans trapped in ghettos, but for blue-collar workers of all colors. At the very least, Democrats could have fought to prevent the further destruction of black communities rather than ratcheting up the wars declared on them.

Of course, it can be said that it’s unfair to criticize the Clintons for punishing black people so harshly, given that many black people were on board with the “get tough” movement too. It is absolutely true that black communities back then were in a state of crisis, and that many black activists and politicians were desperate to get violent offenders off the streets. What is often missed, however, is that most of those black activists and politicians weren’t asking only for toughness. They were also demanding investment in their schools, better housing, jobs programs for young people, economic-stimulus packages, drug treatment on demand, and better access to healthcare. In the end, they wound up with police and prisons. To say that this was what black people wanted is misleading at best.

By 1996, the penal budget was twice the amount that had been allocated to food stamps.
To be fair, the Clintons now feel bad about how their politics and policies have worked out for black people. Bill says that he “overshot the mark” with his crime policies; and Hillary has put forth a plan to ban racial profiling, eliminate the sentencing disparities between crack and cocaine, and abolish private prisons, among other measures.

But what about a larger agenda that would not just reverse some of the policies adopted during the Clinton era, but would rebuild the communities decimated by them? If you listen closely here, you’ll notice that Hillary Clinton is still singing the same old tune in a slightly different key. She is arguing that we ought not be seduced by Bernie’s rhetoric because we must be “pragmatic,” “face political realities,” and not get tempted to believe that we can fight for economic justice and win. When politicians start telling you that it is “unrealistic” to support candidates who want to build a movement for greater equality, fair wages, universal healthcare, and an end to corporate control of our political system, it’s probably best to leave the room.

Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote - from the crime bill to welfare reform, policies Bill Clinton enacted and Hillary Clinton supported, decimated black America